Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[3] [4] [5] It is in contrast to the inquisitorial system used in some civil law systems (i.e. those deriving from Roman law or the Napoleonic code) where a judge investigates the case. The adversarial system is the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate, putting the prosecution against the defense.
An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case.This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.
[citation needed] Unlike the common law proceedings, the president of the bench in the inquisitorial system is not merely an umpire and is entitled to directly interview the witnesses or express comments during the trial, as long as he or she does not express his or her view on the guilt of the accused.
Trials are usually held in front of a panel of judges, but there are numerous exceptions, and in cases one judge may preside. The trial itself follows the adversarial system, with some aspects of the inquisitorial system mixed in, in accordance with the 1958 code of criminal procedure, and is public, oral, and hearing the parties involved. The ...
In contrast to the adversarial system used by common law countries, the German system of criminal (and administrative) procedure is inquisitorial. Rather than allowing cross-examination between the defense and prosecutors, the judges conduct the majority of the trial. During a trial, the parties are expected to give all their evidence to the ...
Unlike most courts in the UK, which use an adversarial system, the IPT mostly uses an inquisitorial system, similar to that of Coroner's Courts, Sheriff Courts under fatal accident inquiry proceedings, or many courts in continental Europe. This is necessary because of the confidentiality of the evidence being considered.
In an inquisitorial system, the trial judges (mostly plural in serious crimes) are inquisitors who actively participate in fact-finding public inquiry by questioning defense lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses. They could even order certain pieces of evidence to be examined if they find presentation by the defense or prosecution to be inadequate.
It was a new, less arbitrary form of trial that replaced the denunciatio and accussatio process [11] which required a denouncer or used an adversarial process, the most unjust being trial by ordeal and the secular Germanic trial by combat. These inquisitions, as church courts, had no jurisdiction over Muslims and Jews as such, to try or to ...